Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure and cardiovascular death among patients with chronic heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less. Whether SGLT2 inhibitors are effective in patients with a higher left ventricular ejection fraction remains less certain.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre-test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for HF symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non-cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), left ventricular (LV) filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F1: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F2: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

Background—: Galectin-3 has been implicated in the development of organ fibrosis. It is unknown whether it is a relevant therapeutic target in cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Methods and Results—: Galectin-3 knock-out and wild-type mice were subjected to angiotensin II infusion (2.5 µg/kg for 14 days) or transverse aortic constriction for 28 days to provoke cardiac remodeling. The efficacy of the galectin-3 inhibitor N-acetyllactosamine was evaluated in TGR(mREN2)27 (REN2) rats and in wild-type mice with the aim of reversing established cardiac remodeling after transverse aortic constriction. In wild-type mice, angiotensin II and transverse aortic constriction perturbations caused left-ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, decreased fractional shortening, and increased LV end-diastolic pressure and fibrosis ( P <0.05 versus control wild type). Galectin-3 knock-out mice also developed LV hypertrophy but without LV dysfunction and fibrosis ( P =NS). In REN2 rats, pharmacological inhibition of galectin-3 attenuated LV dysfunction and fibrosis. To elucidate the beneficial effects of galectin-3 inhibition on myocardial fibrogenesis, cultured fibroblasts were treated with galectin-3 in the absence or presence of galectin-3 inhibitor. Inhibition of galectin-3 was associated with a downregulation in collagen production (collagen I and III), collagen processing, cleavage, cross-linking, and deposition. Similar results were observed in REN2 rats. Inhibition of galectin-3 also attenuated the progression of cardiac remodeling in a long-term transverse aortic constriction mouse model. Conclusions—: Genetic disruption and pharmacological inhibition of galectin-3 attenuates cardiac fibrosis, LV dysfunction, and subsequent heart failure development. Drugs binding to galectin-3 may be potential therapeutic candidates for the prevention or reversal of heart failure with extensive fibrosis.

Making a firm diagnosis of chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains a challenge. We recommend a new stepwise diagnostic process, the ‘HFA–PEFF diagnostic algorithm’. Step 1 (P=Pre‐test assessment) is typically performed in the ambulatory setting and includes assessment for heart failure symptoms and signs, typical clinical demographics (obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elderly, atrial fibrillation), and diagnostic laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, and echocardiography. In the absence of overt non‐cardiac causes of breathlessness, HFpEF can be suspected if there is a normal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, no significant heart valve disease or cardiac ischaemia, and at least one typical risk factor. Elevated natriuretic peptides support, but normal levels do not exclude a diagnosis of HFpEF. The second step (E: Echocardiography and Natriuretic Peptide Score) requires comprehensive echocardiography and is typically performed by a cardiologist. Measures include mitral annular early diastolic velocity (e′), LV filling pressure estimated using E/e′, left atrial volume index, LV mass index, LV relative wall thickness, tricuspid regurgitation velocity, LV global longitudinal systolic strain, and serum natriuretic peptide levels. Major (2 points) and Minor (1 point) criteria were defined from these measures. A score ≥5 points implies definite HFpEF; ≤1 point makes HFpEF unlikely. An intermediate score (2–4 points) implies diagnostic uncertainty, in which case Step 3 (F₁: Functional testing) is recommended with echocardiographic or invasive haemodynamic exercise stress tests. Step 4 (F₂: Final aetiology) is recommended to establish a possible specific cause of HFpEF or alternative explanations. Further research is needed for a better classification of HFpEF.

There is an unmet need for effective treatment strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Until recently, attention in patients with HFpEF was almost exclusively focused on the left side. However, it is now increasingly recognized that right heart dysfunction is common and contributes importantly to poor prognosis in HFpEF. More insights into the development of right heart dysfunction in HFpEF may aid to our knowledge about this complex disease and may eventually lead to better treatments to improve outcomes in these patients. In this position paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Committee on Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and pathophysiology of right heart dysfunction and failure in patients with HFpEF. Finally, potential treatment strategies, important knowledge gaps and future directions regarding the right side in HFpEF are discussed.